Critical Reasoning

Cheetah Sweet, a popular energy drink, has recently released a line of zero calorie energy drinks for athletes who seek flavor and hydration without sugar. But Cheetah Sweet's zero calorie drinks contain a number of chemicals known to have a deleterious effect on the body, so clearly these athletes would be better served by consuming regular Cheetah Sweet instead.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(a). The chemicals affect anyone who drinks Cheetah Sweet's zero calorie line.
(b). Cheetah Sweet's zero calorie line cannot be altered to remove the chemicals.
(c). Regular Cheetah Sweet is at least as tasty as Cheetah Sweet's zero calorie line.
(d). Sugar does not have a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question.
(e). Cheetah Sweet has no plans to discontinue its regular line.

OA is D
I was stuck between D and E but how do you know the best answer here? An Expert help is needed pls.

With questions such as these, it is best to read the question stem first. Our goal is to find a necessary assumption for this question.

The conclusion is: The athletes would be better off consuming regular Cheetah Swift.

Why? Because Cheetah Swift zero contains chemicals known to cause a harmful effect on the body.

However, by providing information about one, we cannot say that it is better to switch. We would need to know that regular Cheetah Swift has fewer chemicals or substances known to cause a harmful effect on the body.

(D) is the best answer. How can we be certain? By negating it. If we negate (D) it becomes: Sugar has a more deleterious effect on the body than the chemicals in question.
If the negated assumption is true, then the argument is destroyed.

On the other hand, negating (E) does not affect whether it would be better to use Cheetah Swift Zero or regular Cheetah Swift.